Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE 

REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO PORTABLE DIESEL ENGINES AND 

DIESEL ENGINES USED IN OFF-ROAD AND ON-ROAD VEHICLES

Public Hearing Date: January 28, 2010 

Agenda Item Numbers: 10-1-2 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

I.a Description of Board Action............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

I.b Modifications to the Original Proposed Regulation .......... Error! Bookmark not 

defined.

I.c Bifurcation of the Rulemaking ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

I.d Fiscal Impact of Proposed Changes ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

I.e Consideration of Alternatives ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSESError! Bookmark 

not defined.

II.a Written Comments Received During the 45-Day Public Comment 

 Period ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

II.b Written Comments Received on the Day of the ARB Public Hearing........ Error! 

Bookmark not defined.

II.c Oral Comments Provided During the ARB Public Hearing......Error! Bookmark 

not defined.

II.d Written Comments Received During the 15-Day Public Comment 

 Period ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments During 

the 45-Day Public Comment Period................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Table 2: List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments on the 

Day of the ARB Public Hearing ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Table 3: List of Individuals & Businesses Providing Oral Comments During the 

ARB Public Hearing ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Table 4: List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments During 

the 15-Day Public Comment Period................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1 

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS 

APPLICABLE TO PORTABLE DIESEL ENGINES AND DIESEL ENGINES USED IN 

OFF-ROAD AND ON-ROAD VEHICLES 

Public Hearing Date: January 28, 2010 

Agenda Item No.: 10-1-2 

I. GENERAL DISCUSSION 

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) provides an update to the Staff Report: 

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments (Staff Report). The Staff 

Report was released to the public on December 10, 2009 and is incorporated by 

reference herein. This FSOR identifies and explains the modifications that were 

made to the original proposal as a result of public comment and staff analysis after 

the Staff Report was issued. The FSOR also summarizes written and oral 

comments the Board received on the proposed regulatory text during the formal 

rulemaking process and the ARB’s responses to those comments. 

I.a Description of Board Action 

At its January 28, 2010 hearing, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) 

adopted resolution 10-2 approving the amendments to the following 

regulations: 

1. The Regulation for the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program 

(PERP Regulation); 

2. The Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate Matter from 

Portable Engines (Portable Engine ATCM); 

3. The Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (Off-Road Vehicle 

Regulation); and 

4. The Regulation for In-Use On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles 

(On-Road Vehicle Regulation). 

In this rulemaking, staff proposed the following changes: 

1. Provide an operating extension for certain uncertified portable engines in 

small and medium fleets. Approximately half of the uncertified engines that 

were required to be put out of service by December 31, 2009 will now be 

able to operate until December 31, 2010 upon selection by their owners. 
2 

2. Revise the applicability of the regulations for water well drilling rigs. Both 

engines on two-engine water well drilling rigs will now be subject to the 

requirements of the Off-Road Vehicle Regulation. 

3. Change the permit and registration eligibility requirements for some portable 

engines. Engines certified to the marine and on-highway emission 

standards may be registered in the Statewide PERP when operated in an 

eligible manner. 

4. Streamline the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements have been reduced for all 

certified engines and engines owned by rental businesses. 

5. Incorporated miscellaneous minor wording changes that will provide 

additional clarity to the PERP Regulation and Portable Engine ATCM. 

These amendments were initiated by the publication of the Notice of Public 

Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the Regulations 

Applicable to Portable Diesel Engines and Diesel Engines Used in Off-Road 

and On-Road Vehicles (45-Day Notice) on December 10, 2009. Written 

comments were received during the 45-day public comment period, which 

closed on January 28, 2010, the date of the public hearing. ARB also received 

written and oral comments made by local regulatory agencies, affected 

businesses, and the public on the day of the public hearing. 

In response to comments received during the 45-day comment period, ARB 

staff presented to the Board members an issue regarding permit eligibility of 

certified engines that do not meet the current tier, and agreed to work with the 

local districts and stakeholders on a possible modification to the Portable 

Engine ATCM to resolve it. In addition, based on public testimony at the 

hearing, the Board directed staff to make the following three additional 

modifications to the regulations: 

1. Give the uncertified engine operating extension to owners of larger fleets; 

2. Further revise the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for rental 

engines to include only necessary information; and 

3. Potentially change the applicability of the regulations to snow blowing 

equipment, if the evaluation by ARB staff shows this to be necessary. 

I.b Modifications to the Original Proposed Regulations 

On January 28, 2010, the Board adopted resolution 10-2 which included 

amendments to the four regulations. As part of this action, the Board directed 

staff to address certain issues, and make appropriate changes consistent with 

the changes proposed in the original 45-day notice package. Staff addressed 

these issues and, on March 15, 2010, sent out a notice proposing additional 

amendments to the PERP Regulation and Portable Engine ATCM consistent 

with the Board’s direction for public comment for a period of 15 days. These 

additional amendments will provide the same extension for uncertified engines 

to all owners of portable engines, regardless of fleet size. 
3 

Summary of Proposed Modifications

In the first 15-day Notice, ARB made the following modifications to the text of 

the regulations: 

1. Modified section 2456(f)(11) of the Statewide PERP Regulation to remove 

the fleet size restriction for the operating extension of registered uncertified 

spark-ignition engines.] 

2. Modified section 93116.3(b)(1)(C) of the Portable Engine ATCM to remove 

the fleet size restriction for the operating extension of permitted or 

registered uncertified diesel-fueled engines. 

I.c Bifurcation of the Rulemaking 

The Executive Officer determined it was necessary to bifurcate approval of the 

regulations so that the final regulations with the most critical elements will 

become legally effective as expeditiously as possible. The first submittal for 

approval contains critical elements including the operating extension for noncertified engines, the changes to the regulations regarding water well drilling 

rigs, allowing for the continued operation of certified on-highway engines in 

portable applications, allowing certified marine engines used on vessels to 

register in PERP, and other changes necessary to result in stand-alone 

regulations when approved. 

Summary of Amendments Included in the First Submittal

Below is a list of the regulatory sections that ARB is requesting approval for in 

this first submittal. 

Title 13, California Code Of Regulations, sections 2025(c)(12) to (14), 2449(b), 

2449(c)(60), 2449(c)(61), 2449(c)(62), 2449(c)(63), 2449(e)(16), 2449(g)(1), 

2449(g)(1)(B), 2449.3(b)(2)(C), 2452(c), 2452(ww) to (bbb), 2453(g), 2456(f), 

2456(f)(2), 2456(f)(10), 2456(f)(11), 2456(i), 2458(j) to (l), 2460(b)(1), 

2460(b)(3), 2460(b)(5) 2461(c) 2461(d), 2461(e), 2461(g), 2461(j), 2461(k), 

Table 2 and Table 3 in section 2461, and 2462(a). 

Title 13, California Code Of Regulations, sections 93116.1(b)(8) to (10), 

93116.2(a)(19), 93116.3(b)(1)(A), and 93116.3(b)(1)(C) 

All of these provisions above are included in the Final Regulation Orders 

submitted with this rulemaking package. The following is a description of the 

amendments being submitted for approval in this first submittal. 

1. Provide a limited operating extension to spark-ignition engines registered in 

PERP and in-use portable diesel engines. This affects sections 2456(f)(10), 

2456(f)(11), 2460(b)(1), and 2462(a) of the PERP Regulation and sections 

93116.2(a)(19), 93116.3(b)(1)(A), and 93116.3(b)(1)(C) of the Portable 

Engine ATCM. 
4 

2. Revise the applicability of the regulations to engines on two-engine water 

well drilling rigs. This affects sections 2452(zz), 2453(g), 2456(i), and 

2458(l) of the PERP Regulation, and 93116.1(b)(10) of the Portable Engine 

ATCM, and all of the amended sections of the Off-Road and On-Road 

Vehicle Regulations. 

3. Allow for the continued operation of permitted or registered on-highway 

certified diesel engines beyond January 1, 2010. This affects section 

93116.3(b)(1)(A) of the Portable Engine ATCM. 

4. Allow certified engines on marine vessels to register in PERP. This affects 

sections 2452(c) and 2456(f)(2) of the PERP Regulation 

5. Delete obsolete definitions in sections 2452(ww), (xx) and (aaa) of the 

PERP Regulation so that the section numbering will be consistent with the 

added definition of “water well drilling rig” in section 2452(zz). 

6. Delete the vendor report in section 2458(j) which was deemed unnecessary 

so that the section numbering will be consistent with the new provision for 

water well drilling rigs in section 2458(l). 

7. Delete section 2461(k), which has become obsolete, including Table 2 of 

the PERP Regulation because this section makes reference to definitions in 

2452(ww) and (xx) which are being deleted in this submittal. 

8. Because Table 3 will now be Table 2, all sub-sections of 2460 and 2461 

with a reference to the fee table are also included for consistency. 

The second submittal will include amendments listed in the first 45-day public 

notice which consist mainly of changes intended to improve clarity of the PERP 

Regulation and Portable Engine ATCM, and also amendments that will be 

made available for public comment by a second 15-day notice, consistent with 

the Board direction mentioned previously. The amended sections to be 

submitted in the second submittal are clearly noted in the Final Regulation 

Orders included with this submittal. 

This FSOR includes only comments directed towards the amendments listed in 

the initial 45-day notice and the first 15-day notice. A separate FSOR 

document identifying the remaining amendments and including comments 

made during the second 15-day notice will be issued subsequently. ARB plans 

to submit the second submittal with these additional amendments, as part of 

the current rulemaking, on or before December 9, 2010. 

I.d Fiscal Impact of Proposed Changes 

The Board has determined that this regulatory action will result in temporary 

cost savings to some State agencies, will have no impact on federal funding to 

the State, and will have some temporary cost savings to local government 

agencies. The temporary savings are due to the delay in replacing certain 

uncertified portable engines by one year, which will affect the latter half of fiscal 

year 2009/2010 and the first half of fiscal year 2010/2011. 
5 

ARB staff originally estimated that the fiscal impact of the one year extension 

for uncertified engines to affected local government agencies was a temporary 

delay in costs of approximately $10.3 million. With the modification to include 

all fleets, 35 additional local agencies will qualify for the extension. Therefore, 

the delay in costs for local government agencies is now approximately 

$11 million. 

ARB staff originally estimated that the fiscal impact of the one year extension 

for uncertified engines to affected State government agencies was a temporary 

delay in costs of about $228,000. With the modification to include all fleets, 

one additional State agency will qualify for the extension. Therefore, the delay 

in costs for State government agencies is now approximately $339,000. 

I.e Consideration of Alternatives 

Alternatives to this regulatory action were considered in the Staff Report, 

in accordance with Government Code section 11346.2. After responding 

to the comments received, ARB concludes that no reasonable alternative 

considered by the agency, or that has otherwise been identified and 

brought to the attention of the agency, would be more effective in carrying 

out the purpose for which the regulatory action was proposed or would be 

as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the 

amendments adopted by the Board. 
6 

II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES

II.a Written Comments Received During the 45-Day Public Comment Period 

The Board received several written comments during the formal 45-day 

comment period. The 45-day public comment period was open from 

December 10, 2009 to January 28, 2010. Persons submitting written 

comments during the public comment period are listed in Table 1. 

Following the list are summaries of each comment as well as agency 

responses. Each response includes an explanation of either any changes 

made or the reasons for making no change. 

Table 1 

List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments 

During the 45-Day Public Comment Period 

Commenter 

Reference Code Name & Affiliation 

Date of 

Comment 

BOB 

Bob 

Private Citizen 

San Diego, California 

12-11-09 

HCAT 

Wood, Jeff 

Hawthorne Caterpillar 

San Diego, California 

12-18-09 

BAES 

Bandera, Cara 

BAE Systems SDSR 

San Diego, California 

1-05-10 

CRI 

Boyd, Charles 

Cinerep International, Inc. 

Chatsworth, California 

1-05-10 

WFUS 

Hassebrock, Robert 

Weatherford U.S., L.P. 

Santa Paula, California 

1-06-10 

NWS 

Thomas, James 

Nabors Well Services Co. 

Bakersfield, California 

1-07-10 

BJSC 

Van Allen, Doug 

BJ Services Company USA 

Bakersfield, California 

1-08-10 

EAI 

Danforth, Miles 

Evergreen Arborists, Inc. 

Woodland, California 

1-13-10 

LASTELIC 

Lastelic, John 

Private Citizen 

Location Unknown 

1-14-10 
7 

Commenter 

Reference Code Name & Affiliation 

Date of 

Comment 

CRS 

Mangold, Grace 

John Johnson 

The CAT Rental Store 

Stockton, California 

1-18-10 

MANN 

Mann, David 

Private Citizen 

Location Unknown 

1-18-10 

MCAQMD 

Brown, Christopher 

Mendocino County AQMD 

Ukiah, California 

1-19-10 

WALLACE 

Wallace, Arleen 

Private Citizen 

Location Unknown 

1-20-10 

MAHAN 

Mahan, Kevin 

Private Citizen 

Location Unknown 

1-20-10 

SCEC 

Lany, Karl 

SCEC Air Quality Specialists 

Orange, California 

1-21-10 

ARA 

Graboski, Michael, Ph.D. 

McClelland, John, Ph.D., V.P., Gov. Affairs 

American Rental Association 

Washington, D.C. 

1-22-10 

TFI 

Gaines, Bill, Chairman 

Transfer Flow, Inc. 

Chico, California 

1-25-10 

MBAPCD 

Stedman, Richard 

Monterey Bay Unified APCD 

Monterey, California 

1-26-10 

GU 

Venerable, Randall 

Generators Unlimited 

Brisbane, California 

1-26-10 

SLOAPCD 

Allen, Larry 

San Luis Obispo APCD 

San Luis Obispo, California 

1-26-10 

CGA 

Mortensson, J. Michael 

California Groundwater Association 

Santa Rosa, California 

1-27-10 

CIAQC 

Lewis, Michael 

Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition 

West Covina, California 

1-27-10 

GCTWD 

Segarra, Anthony 

Gary C. Tanko Well Drilling, Inc. 

Location Unknown 

1-27-10 
8 

Commenter 

Reference Code Name & Affiliation 

Date of 

Comment 

STEVE 

K., Steve 

Private Citizen 

Location Unknown 

1-27-10 

CCIMA 

Harper, Adam 

Cal. Construction & Industrial Materials 

Assoc. 

Sacramento, California 

1-27-10 

MC 

McNally, James 

Manson Construction 

Long Beach, California 

1-27-10 

Comment 1: 

Several private citizens requested that the agency abandon or severely curtail the 

regulation of diesel engines. (BOB, LASTELIC, MANN, WALLACE, MAHAN, 

STEVE) 

Agency Response: 

The ARB is committed to protecting public health from the harmful effects of Air 

Pollution. In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) as a 

toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and 

other health problems. Diesel engines also contribute to California’s fine particulate 

matter (PM 2.5) air quality problems. Those most vulnerable are children whose 

lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health 

problems. Based on year 2005 emissions in California, diesel PM contributes each 

year to approximately 3,500 premature deaths and thousands of hospital 

admissions, asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms, and lost workdays. 

Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s 

known cancer risk from outdoor air pollutants. These regulations for diesel engines 

are necessary to reduce the public’s exposure to toxic diesel PM. As part of the 

rulemaking process, the Board is required to consider the cost of the regulation that 

is designed to reduce emissions and protect public health. 

Comment 2: 

An industry representative requested that ARB create a web-based reporting system 

for portable equipment to reduce the cost of paperwork. This representative also 

requested an online fleet average emission calculator. (HCAT) 

Agency Response: 

Staff agrees with the value of electronic reporting tools. Currently, there is a fleet 

average emission calculator on our website. An online system is in development 

which will allow companies to register equipment, submit reports, and perform fleet 

calculations. ARB staff expects this system to be available within two years. 
9 

Comment 3: 

Two industry representatives requested that changes be made to the PERP 

Regulation requirements for engines operating in State Territorial Waters (STW) to 

make them less burdensome to industry. Specifically, they recommended that the 

district notification requirement should be reduced or removed. (BAES, MC) 

Agency Response: 

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed amendments. No changes to 

the requirements for engines operating in the STW are being proposed at this time. 

However, ARB staff believes that this issue is best handled at the local district level 

in order to mitigate any potential emissions impacts. 

Comment 4: 

An industry representative stated that the compliance dates in the Portable Engine 

ATCM should be made to align with the requirements of the In-Use Off-Road Vehicle 

Regulation. Specifically, non-certified engines should be allowed the compliance 

deadlines of 2013 or 2015, depending on fleet size. (CRI) 

Agency Response: 

We recognize that similar engines are used in the two programs. However, there is 

a major difference in the timing of the rules that have been adopted for the two 

programs. The Statewide PERP Regulation was established in 1997 as an 

alternative program to the local permitting requirements of portable engines. Since 

the beginning of the program, there was a requirement that all registered Tier 0 

engines had to be upgraded by January 1, 2010. This time period allowed 

businesses a minimum of 13 years of useful life to recover the cost of the 

equipment. However, due to economic conditions, the Board is allowing for a oneyear extension of certain non-certified portable engines. In order to preserve 

emission reductions and protect public health, we have not proposed further relaxing 

the compliance date. 

Comment 5: 

Owners of larger fleets want the same operating extension for uncertified engines as 

was proposed for owners of smaller fleets. (WFUS, NWS, BJSC, CRS, CIAQC, 

CCIMA) 

Agency Response: 

At the hearing, the Board directed staff to grant the same operating extension for 

uncertified engines to all owners of portable engines. 
10 

Comment 6: 

The amendment to allow certified on-highway engines to remain in service should 

have been made sooner because our company spent significant amounts of money 

to replace these on-highway engines already. (NWS, BJSC) 

Agency Response: 

As part of considering regulatory amendments, we evaluated the impact the change 

would have on affected businesses. This is an important element of our evaluation. 

We did not make this single change earlier due to the small number of engines 

affected, which would not justify the resources required for a regulatory effort. 

However, once ARB began amending other sections of the regulation it became 

effective to include this action as part of our overall regulatory effort. The change to 

allow on-highway certified engines used in portable applications to continue to 

remain in service was made after carefully considering both the costs and benefits of 

the proposed action and was developed as expeditiously as possible. 

Comment 7: 

ARB and the local districts should either thoroughly inspect all registered engines or 

focus inspections on older engines in order to verify that the uncertified engines that 

are not allowed to operate have been removed from service. (NWS, CRS) 

Agency Response: 

This comment is related to the ongoing implementation and enforcement of the 

regulation and not specifically to the proposed amendments. However, we agree 

that enforcement is an important part of the effectiveness of the program. In the last 

few years, additional funding has allowed the local air districts to enhance their 

activities and many illegally-operating engines have been identified. 

Comment 8: 

The amendments to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the 

PERP Regulation are still too burdensome, especially for rental companies. These 

requirements should be further revised to be less costly, or they should be 

completely removed. (BJSC, CRS, SCEC, CIAQC) 

Agency Response: 

At the hearing, the Board directed staff to evaluate the current recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for rental equipment and make further amendments as 

necessary. We are currently developing proposed changes that will be subject to a 

subsequent 15-day public comment period. 
11 

Comment 9: 

The PERP regulation should be revised to allow registrations to be issued 

electronically and accessed over the internet. (SCEC) 

Agency Response: 

An online system is currently under development which will allow companies to 

register equipment, submit annual reports, and perform fleet calculations. ARB staff 

expects this system to be available within two years.

Comment 10: 

A few representatives from the wood chipping and water well drilling industries 

expressed support of the proposed amendments and urged the Board to adopt 

them. (EAI, CGA, GCTWD) 

Agency Response: 

Thank you for your support. 

Comment 11: 

A representative from a local air district does not want the vendor sales reporting 

requirement to be removed from the PERP Regulation. The commenter believes the 

information can be useful in finding those operators who are not in compliance with 

the requirement to have a permit or registration. (MCAQMD) 

Agency Response: 

The PERP Regulation is intended to only contain requirements for portable 

equipment registered in the program. It was not intended to regulate the sales of 

new equipment. In an effort to clarify the intent of the regulation, it was decided to 

remove this provision. If a mechanism is desired to track the sales of equipment for 

which a permit may potentially be required, then a vendor notification requirement 

should be established in the rules and regulations that require those mandatory 

permits. 

Comment 12: 

The language of the proposed amendment to section 2453(i)(3) of the PERP 

Regulation is not clear. (ARA) 

Agency Response: 

ARB staff made changes to the strikeout underline notation of this section which 

were published with the 15-day notice on March 15, 2010. These notation changes 

should clarify the proposed language. 
12 

Comment 13: 

It is unclear what rental companies must provide in order to satisfy the requirement 

that “a written copy of applicable requirements” must be provided to the customer as 

part of the rental agreement per section 2458(b) of the PERP Regulation. (ARA) 

Agency Response: 

This comment is related to the ongoing implementation and enforcement of the 

regulation and not specifically to the proposed amendments. However, ARB staff 

has stated previously that a copy of the registration documents including the 

operating conditions would be sufficient to comply with this requirement. ARB staff 

plans to conduct additional outreach to improve awareness. 

Comment 14: 

Many of the items such as material throughput and specific location that are 

currently required to be tracked for recordkeeping are not known to the rental 

company. (ARA) 

Agency Response: 

ARB staff added certain criteria with these amendments, such as tracking specific 

location, in order to make it possible to determine compliance with the requirements 

of the applicable regulations. The rental equipment owners should make it part of 

the rental agreement that this information is required to be kept by the operator. 

However, as part of the modifications directed by the Board at the January 28, 2010 

hearing, ARB staff will be evaluating the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

for rental equipment and will be proposing further amendments as necessary. Any 

proposed changes will be subject to a subsequent 15-day comment period. 

Comment 15: 

Equipment used by a Provider of Essential Public Services (PEPS) but owned by the 

rental company should not be subject to the reporting requirements of section 

2458(g) of the PERP Regulation. (ARA) 

Agency Response: 

ARB staff will consider this change as part of the modification directed by the Board. 

Any proposed changes will be subject to a subsequent 15-day comment period. 
13 

Comment 16: 

There should be a refund available for rental companies who pay full inspection fees 

but then later qualify for the “multiple engine inspection fee discount.” (ARA) 

Agency Response: 

This is an implementation issue and is not related to the proposed amendments. 

This topic is specifically addressed in our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 

document on our website. It states the following: “Inspection fees are required to be 

paid with the initial application and renewal. Because this multiple-engine discount 

has to be chosen in advance, registrants should give careful consideration to 

selecting this option as being able to comply with this provision will take significant 

planning on their part. Because the intent to participate in a multiple inspection 

discount must be chosen upfront per section 2460(b)(7) of the PERP Regulation, we 

are not able to issue a refund in situations where industry later elects to alter its 

inspection planning and/or schedule.” 

Comment 17: 

If the operator of rental equipment is in violation of any requirement in either the 

PERP Regulation or the Portable ATCM, then the owner of the equipment should 

not be held liable. (ARA) 

Agency Response: 

Rental equipment owners are required to give written notification of all the PERP 

regulation requirements to their customers. If an operator is then in violation of any 

of these requirements, the enforcement will be handled on a case-by-case basis by 

the local air district or ARB enforcement staff taking into consideration the specific 

circumstances to determine the responsible parties. 

Comment 18: 

The Retrofit Verification process should be revised to allow diesel particulate filters 

(DPFs) that have been verified for on-road engines to be automatically extended to 

off-road, portable, and stationary engines without additional testing. (TFI) 

Agency Response: 

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed amendments. The Retrofit 

Verification Program is not part of the regulations being amended by this action. 

However, ARB staff is available to discuss this matter further with the commenter. 
14 

Comment 19: 

The portable ATCM should be revised to allow the retrofit of non-certified portable 

engines with DPFs instead of the current requirement to have them replaced or 

removed from service by January 1, 2010. (TFI) 

Agency Response: 

The Portable Engine ATCM does not allow retrofits of portable non-certified engines 

so that they may operate beyond January 1, 2010. During the development of the 

Portable Engine ATCM, it was the consensus among stakeholders that engine 

replacement, and not retrofit, was the best course of action for these non-certified 

engines. It should also be noted that most of the portable engines discussed in the 

comment letter are used at agricultural sources, and these engines are not subject 

to the regulations being amended with this action. 

Comment 20: 

Representatives from two local air districts do not want the Portable Engine ATCM to 

restrict the ability of the local air district’s to issue permits for certified diesel-fueled 

engines that do not meet the current emission tier level. (MBAPCD, SLOAPCD) 

Agency Response: 

At the hearing, ARB staff proposed to work with the local air districts and 

stakeholders regarding this situation and make additional amendments if necessary. 

Proposed amendments will be available for public review in a subsequent 15-day 

comment period. 

Comment 21: 

An industry representative stated that ARB should re-evaluate the regulations 

applicable to portable engines with consideration to the recent economic recession, 

and relax the requirements to be less burdensome on businesses. (GU) 

Agency Response: 

ARB performs an economic analysis with each new regulation and regulation 

amendment. The proposed amendments will provide an operating extension for 

many engines which will result in economic relief for businesses that own these 

engines. A consideration of the current economic recession was an important factor 

in developing the proposed changes. 
15 

II.b Written Comments Received on the Day of the ARB Public Hearing 

 Written comments were also accepted by ARB at the time of the ARB Public 

Hearing (January 28, 2010). These written comments are also considered 

to be 45-day public comments. Individuals, businesses, and organizations 

submitting written comments at the public hearing are listed in Table 2. 

Following the list are summaries of each comment as well as agency 

responses. Each response includes an explanation of either any changes 

made or the reasons for making no change. 

Table 2 

List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments on the 

Day of the ARB Public Hearing 

Commenter 

Reference Code Name & Affiliation 

Date of 

Comment 

RCRC 

Pitto, Mary 

Regional Council of Rural Counties 

Sacramento, California 

1-28-10 

SCCA 

Davis, William 

Southern California Contractors 

Association 

Los Angeles, California 

1-28-10 

CGA 

Mortensen, Michael 

California Groundwater Association 

Santa Rosa, California 

1-28-10 

Comment 1: 

A representative from local government requested that ARB revise the applicability 

of the regulations for snow blowing equipment. This type of equipment faces many 

of the same issues as two-engine cranes, street sweepers, and water well drilling 

rigs. Therefore, snow blowers should be similarly exempted from the Portable 

Engine ATCM as was done for those types of equipment. (RCRC) 

Agency Response: 

At the hearing, the Board directed staff to evaluate this situation and make additional 

amendments if necessary. Any proposed amendments will be available for public 

review in a subsequent 15-day comment period. 

Comment 2: 

Owners of larger fleets should get the same operating extension for uncertified 

engines as proposed for those fleets with 25 or fewer engines. (SCCA) 
16 

Agency Response: 

Please see the agency response to Comment 5 submitted during the 45-day 

comment period. 

Comment 3: 

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the PERP Regulation 

are too burdensome for all industry. These requirements should be completely 

removed. (SCCA) 

Agency Response: 

Recordkeeping and reporting are needed in order to determine compliance with the 

requirements of the applicable regulations, so they cannot simply be removed. 

However, as part of the modifications directed by the Board at the January 28, 2010 

hearing, ARB staff will be evaluating the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

for rental equipment and will be proposing further amendments as necessary. Any 

proposed amendments will be available for public review in a subsequent 15-day 

comment period. 

Comment 4: 

Although this representative from industry had submitted written comments during 

the 45-day period, he passed along additional comments from two members in his 

association that supported the amendments regarding water well drilling rigs. (CGA) 

Agency Response: 

Thank you for your support. 
17 

II.c Oral Comments Provided During the ARB Public Hearing 

 The general public presented comments to the Board during the ARB Public 

Hearing held on January 28, 2010, in Sacramento, California. Persons that 

made oral statements on the proposed amendments are listed in Table 3. 

Following the list are summaries of each comment as well as agency 

responses. Each response includes an explanation of either any changes 

made, or the reasons for making no change. 

Table 3 

List of Individuals & Businesses Providing Oral Comments 

During the ARB Public Hearing

Commenter 

Reference Code 

Name & Affiliation 

Written 

Comments 

Provided 

TFI 

Gaines, Bill 

Transfer Flow, Inc. 

Yes 

CAPCOA 

Zeldin, Mel 

California Air Pollution Control Officers Assoc. 

No 

SCAQMD 

Wallerstein, Barry 

South Coast AQMD 

No 

ARA 

Graboski, Michael 

American Rental Association 

Yes 

RCRC 

Pitto, Mary 

Regional Council of Rural Counties 

Yes 

BJSC 

Van Allen, Doug 

BJ Services Company 

Yes 

NWS 

Thomas, James 

Nabors Well Services Co. 

Yes 

SCEC 

Lany, Karl 

SCEC Air Quality Specialists 

Yes 

SCCA 

Davis, William 

Southern California Contractors Assoc. 

Yes 

CGA 

Mortensen, Michael 

California Groundwater Association 

Yes 

DWD 

Fulton, Arthur 

Diamond Well Drilling 

No 

CIAQC 

Lewis, Michael 

Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition 

Yes 

WATSON 

Watson, Scott 

Private Citizen 

No 

BCP 

Weiss, Fitz 

Berkeley Concrete Pumping 

No 
18 

Comment 1: 

Various representatives from industry and local regulatory agencies provided oral 

testimony that repeated the same objections, concerns, and recommendations that 

were stated in their submitted written comments. (TFI, ARA, RCRC, BJSC, NWS, 

SCEC, SCCA, CGA, CIAQC) 

Agency Response: 

Because the oral testimony was duplicative of the written comments submitted by 

these persons, no additional response is contained here. Refer to agency 

responses to written comments as follows: 

Commenter 

Reference Code 

Previously Submitted 

Comment Number 

Time Submitted 

TFI 18 and 19 45-day period 

ARA 12 through 16 45-day period 

RCRC 1 ARB public hearing

BJSC 5, 6, and 8 45-day period 

NWS 5, 6, and 7 45-day period 

SCEC 8 and 9 45-day period 

SCCA 2 and 3 ARB public hearing

CGA 10 45-day period 

CGA 4 ARB public hearing

CIAQC 5 and 8 45-day period 

Comment 2: 

The Portable Engine ATCM should not restrict the local air district’s ability to issue 

permits for certified diesel-fueled engines that do not meet the current emission tier 

level. (CAPCOA) 

Agency Response: 

Please see the agency response to Comment 20 submitted during the 45-day 

comment period. 

Comment 3: 

The Portable Engine ATCM should contain a prohibition of sale provision to prevent 

unpermitted Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines from being sold to unsuspecting buyers in 

California by unscrupulous vendors. (CAPCOA) 

Agency Response: 

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed amendments. No requirements 

for the sale of portable engines are being proposed at this time. There has been 

and will continue to be outreach efforts to inform stakeholders about the 

requirements of the regulations. 
19 

Comment 4: 

A representative from a local air district expressed his support of the proposed 

amendments and urged the Board to adopt them. (SCAQMD) 

Agency Response: 

Thank you for your support. 

Comment 5: 

A representative from the water well drilling industry expressed his support of the 

proposed amendments and urged the Board to adopt them. (DWD) 

Agency Response: 

Thank you for your support. 

Comment 6: 

A person expressed concern about the selection process for members of the 

Scientific Review Panel. (WATSON) 

Agency Response: 

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed amendments. No additional 

response is required. 

Comment 7: 

A representative from industry expressed concern that the proposed extension for 

uncertified engines is only proposed for engines that were permitted or registered as 

of December 31, 2009. His engines are currently operating under a compliance 

agreement, and would not be eligible for the extension. (BCP) 

Agency Response: 

The compliance agreement issued by the district includes criteria for operation and 

replacement of the engines. The local district has the enforcement discretion to let 

him operate under his current compliance agreement for as long as the district 

deems to be appropriate, which may be in line with the extension time period. 
20 

II.d Written Comments Received During the 15-Day Public Comment Period 

Written comments from the general public were also accepted by ARB 

during the 15-day public comment period following the issuance of the 

15-Day Notice. The modified regulations were released for public comment 

on March 15, 2010. The public comment period remained open until the 

close of business on March 30, 2010. Persons that commented on the 

modified PERP Regulation or Portable Engine ATCM regulation by 

submitting written comments are listed in Table 4. Following the list are 

summaries of each comment as well as agency responses. Each response 

includes an explanation of either any changes made or the reasons for 

making no change. 

Table 4 

List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments 

During the 15-Day Public Comment Period

Commenter 

Reference Code Name & Affiliation 

Date of 

Comment 

CASTILLA 

Castilla, Carlos 

Private Citizen 

Location Unknown 

3-16-10 

CPBO 

McClure, Laurie 

Concrete Pumping Business Owner 

Location Unknown 

3-23-10 

CIAQC 

Lewis, Michael 

Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition 

West Covina, California 

3-25-10 

SBO 

Kenyon, Stan 

Small Business Owner 

San Rafael, California 

3-30-10 

MWDSC 

Bell, Janet 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

Los Angeles, California 

3-30-10 

Comment 1: 

A private citizen stated that these amendments will put him and many others like him 

out of business, which will result in them going on government welfare. A business 

owner stated that the ARB regulations are too burdensome and have a negative 

economic impact on his business. (CASTILLA, SBO) 

Agency Response: 

The objective of the amendments is to provide temporary economic relief for 

operators of non-certified portable engines after considering public comment as well 

as considering other factors including costs and emissions. Please see the agency 

response to the Comment 21 submitted during the 45-day comment period. 
21 

Comment 2: 

This business owner was displeased with the fact that Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified 

engines are no longer eligible for permits or registration. (CPBO) 

Agency Response: 

Please see the agency response to Comment 20 submitted during the 45-day 

comment period. 

Comment 3: 

A representative from industry stated the same objections, concerns, and 

recommendations that were stated in their previous written comments submitted 

during the 45-day comment period and oral comments made at the hearing. 

(CIAQC) 

Agency Response: 

Please see the agency responses to Comments 5 and 8 submitted during the 45-

day comment period. 

Comment 4: 

The amendment to the recordkeeping requirements to include more tracking of 

specific location is contrary to the goal of streamlining the regulation and reducing 

the regulatory burden on portable equipment owners. (MWDSC) 

Agency Response: 

This comment is outside the scope of the modifications included in the 15-day 

notice. No additional changes to the requirements for recordkeeping are being 

proposed with that notice. It should be noted that the commenter is not subject to 

this recordkeeping requirement as a Provider of Essential Public Services (PEPS). 

The tracking of specific location is necessary for the enforcement of the requirement 

that portable equipment shall not reside at a location for more than 12 consecutive 

months. 

Comment 5: 

The PERP regulation should be amended to allow equipment to be operated during 

the lag time from when an electronic notification is sent to the equipment owner that 

the equipment has been registered, and when the registration documents are 

received in the mail by the owner. (MWDSC) 
22 

Agency Response: 

This comment is outside the scope of the modifications included in the 15-day 

notice. No additional changes to the requirements for electronic notification of 

registration are being proposed with that notice. This issue concerns the 

implementation of the online registration system currently under development. ARB 

staff will conduct outreach and training for all users of this system once it is ready.